Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:09, 18 May 2010

If you leave a message here this editor will possibly reply on your talkpage, or here, or on the talkpage of an article concerned, or somewhere else, or any combination of the above. It is probably best for you to suggest the preferred arena for a response...

Caveat Should I receive information by private means I shall consider that the sender has waived any claim of copyright or privacy on their part of the message and has obtained such permission on the part of any third parties whose post(s) form part of the message. By communicating with me outside of Misplaced Pages spaces you are giving me permission to disseminate the content of any message in the manner of my choosing, and you hold yourself liable for any violation of law, Misplaced Pages policies, service providers Terms of Service, and other consequence of my making public of such information. I would note that this is a reciprocal undertaking, in that I release all claim of confidentiality in relation to Misplaced Pages related communications sent by me, and only request that the recipient act with all due care and good faith. You may request privacy, and I may honour such a request, but I am not bound by it. Mark Slater

If you have come to this page to Request a self block, please ensure you have read and understood User:LessHeard vanU/Requests for self blocking requirements - especially the bit about my declining without explanation. If you are sincere in your wish for an enforced break, however, please make a request by opening a new section on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Archives

"won" "too" three "fore" "fie've" "sicks" "'S 'eaven!" "ate" "Nein!" "TEN...sion..." "eel 'eaven" "'twere elve'"

Archives

Abtract, Collectonian & Sesshomaru Freemasonry

user:Crisarco

I think that Crisarco isn't Ragusino. Crisarco is an italian user, mostly active on itwiki. According to this, ranges are different. Thank you in advance. --Melos (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MEAT, and "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity" it is not vital that Crisarco is not Ragusino, but if they are disruptive in the same manner as a banned user. They are, in both my opinion and another editor with some experience of the manner of Ragusino's editing. Further, I am aware of the proximity between Italy and Croatia and the shared cross Adriatic cultural history between the two states (and their predecessors). LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for meddling but I use to take a look at Istria vs. Croatia war on en.wiki, as you can see from my edits I dealt many times with this stuff.

Crisarco is not a sock or a meatpuppet of Ragusino's for a lot of reasons: different IPs, different why of use wiki, different levels of English kwnoledge and, finally, they have **so** different POVs, Ragusino and his friends (PIO and Brunodam) belongs to radical-right while Crisarco seems to belong to left.

You told that users acting in the same why of a vandal or troll must be blocked, that's true but I think Crisarco didn't: Crisarco reverted "Republic of Dubrovnik" back to "Republic of Ragusa", it sounds as reverting back Great Londinum to Greater London or New Amsterdam County back to New York County (I hope these links will remain red for a looooong time). But even taking no position in this edit-war you can see that one of the most respected it.wiki's sysops (Piero Montesacro) has been deemed "PIO's sockpuppet" by DIREKTOR. Even me who have been threatened of death by Brunodam (in order to have an evidence you can take a look at my edits on meta) has been called Brunodam's sockpuppet (!!).

So I'm asking you for doing a deeper analisys of Crisarco's behaviour.

Best regards. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request at Crisarco's It-wp talkpage for their comments, and have amended their Eng-WP talkpage to accommodate any response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you spent to solve this problem :)

--Vituzzu (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank U! --Crisarco (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

How long are article merge proposals meant to run? mark nutley (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Until a consensus is formed, one way or another. If no new consensus, then it defaults to the existing one - by means of inertia, I suppose - but the proposal is usually kept open for any new argument to emerge. The onus is to have a consensus for the merge, any other (no) result means no merge. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When you say the proposal is usually kept open do you mean on the article talk page? I am wondering how long the tags are meant to remain on the article itself, thanks mark nutley (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on the article talk page. The templates remain on the article until someone decides there is a definitive (no) consensus, or perhaps when the merge discussion has had no further comments for some months (or has been auto archived). The templates are only to advertise that there is an ongoing discussion, and if the discussion has concluded or stopped for some time then there is no need to advertise. If someone comes along and independently concludes there should be a merge then the process can start again, and the previous discussion be retrieved and reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

I would be extremely thankfull if you could explain to me the reasons behind your recent blocking of my account so I can be more carefull in the future. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As indicated in my block rationale, your responses to comments to your request at ANI (This diff - all of the comment, not just the update) indicated that you were not intending to abide by the consensus that you should allow the matter to drop, but were going to pursue the issue. I concluded that by continuing to act in this matter you would have been disruptive, and so enacted the block to prevent this. Had you responded at the ANI discussion that you would do as suggested in not seeking sanction against AlisdairGreen (spelling?) but civilly asked for further rationale and clarification, then I would not have sanctioned you. In short, if you go to a admin noticeboard and in refuting the consensus indicate that you will continue acting against policy then there is a good chance of there being action taken against you. The best way to avoid a future scenario is to disengage from an issue while you are feeling strongly about it, and only comment when you feel calm. Not only will this result in you not being sanctioned, but it will likely prove more effective in bringing about a resolution more to your preference; if you are being reasonable about another editors alleged poor behaviour then you will be accorded more consideration. I am not sure if this is the response you were expecting, but I hope that it gives you something to think about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, please, I was not having any expectations regarding the answer here... But, I still have some doubts, specially regarding "consensus". What you mean by "consensus" in that situation? And also, "civilly asked for further rationale and clarification", I was asking for further clarification, but where does my response fail in civility? Also, it looks like you assuming that I would "continue acting against policy" is clearly not WP:AGF, and, in your words, this could take me to "a good chance of there being action taken against you". So, by blocking me, you were also trying to avoid further action being taken against me? FkpCascais (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was that the comments by AlisdairGreen were not going to be actioned, as there was not the personal attack as you claimed, by a number of commentators. You, however, declared that you would continue to pursue the matter - which I said was disruptive, not uncivil. In my suggesting that you ask for clarification "civilly" I was not claiming you had been uncivil, but that in that request you should ensure you did not demand answers but ask for a rationale so, like here, you had a better understanding of the situation. The "acting against policy" I was referring to was the stated intent to pursue the matter, which I considered to be disruptive, which was from your own comment (and therefore not a violation of AGF). To the last point, no. I was explaining why I took the action - it was your reaction to the responses to your request, in a place where a lot of the readers have access to the block button. Another admin could have easily blocked you, perhaps for less time or perhaps more. That is always the risk when disputing the consensus on an admin board. I trust this clarifies my earlier response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, regarding the "consensus", your explanations don´t clarify me much. I still fail to understand how one opinion can be considered "consensus"? And, you mean, I am not permited to disagree and point some inconsistencies in the one person "consensus" comment? And, what you mean by "a number of commentators"? The only ones that commented before my "blockable" comment were User:DIREKTOR, not an admin, but simple user, that in the same report had expressed that he was acting on defende of the user I was complaining about because of his alledged abscence, and User:Beeblebrox already mentioned comment. Who counts here in your alledged "consensus"? Because if direktor does, next time I am going to pay a bunch of people to make WP accounts just to comment on my side on the ANI reports I am involved. Ending with ironies, I still can´t see how one opinion, beside being an admin, can be considered "consensus"? Please be kind and explain this to me.
Regarding your action, I can´t really understand how can a experienced admin consider far more important to sanction, and find all sorts of reasons for it, this words of mine: "I am tired of this, and I wan´t give up just because it´s the easieast solution" meaning, I was deeply insulted, and I want just "forget it" as increadibly suggested by the previos comment, together with, "(well this kind of insults, never)", meaning, I had never said this kind of insults here on WP, and you feel completely free to ignore my complains, receving this on my talk page: " you can kiss your sorry ass goodbye." and also "I will drag your sorry ass", both in SAME post, meaning clearly they were not "accidental", or something like. I can´t even see comparison between this two post... I really hope you can further explain this to me, because we should seek some solution to this. FkpCascais (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be repeating myself, but will try again. The consensus was Beeblebrox's explanation of how policy interpreted the situation - consensus is not numbers, but the application of the relevant rules. I am aware of DIREKTOR's commenting - and the counter claims and accusations included there - and note that Beeblebrox was addressing both of you, in his capacity as an admin, in requesting for you both to stop. DIREKTOR did, you didn't. The fact you did not like the advice is unfortunate and understandable, but that is sometimes the case when bringing matters to the noticeboards. Rebutting it was unwise, which is where my earlier advice that you should try to step back from the matter until the passion has subsided more relates to. Again, if you wanted understanding you could have addressed Beeblebrox's rationale and requested clarification - but you rejected it, and indicated that you would pursue the matter (having AlisdairGreen27 brought to account for the comments) further. I do understand that you were distressed by the language used, but you were advised that there was not sufficient cause for action to be taken and that should have been the conclusion of the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel extremely sorry that you have to repeat yourself. Beleve me, that was not my intention. Regarding your comment on the edit summary of your previos comment, here , saying "try again", I supose, to me, well, I think that you should know that I allways do what I feel that is correct and more apropriate, as in life, so here on WP, too, so if I feel that I have to "try again", I will, or not, so you don´t have to warry about my actions, or its consequencies.

Since you stated that you don´t want to repeat yourself, and I obviously don´t desire to have someone doing it (that would really become painfull to both of us), I will just ask you one last question: Do you really feel that this case is over the way it is, and you really feel that there are no reasons to setlle this out and find some solution for it? Thank you, and I really apologise to make you "repeat yourself". FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The particular instance regarding AlisdairGreen(some number)'s alleged personal attack is, I feel. If there are repeated instances in the future, then there may be some value in referring to the issue again (perhaps as part of a WP:WQA report, where upsetting comments below the criteria of personal attacks might be addressed). Like the editing history of Misplaced Pages, nothing need ever be completely discarded - but neither does it need resurrecting unless it becomes relevant again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem regarding that particular user is that this was not his first time that he has got this kind of trouble (and I am not talking about my previos report on him), but has been rather a "periodical" problem he has (I´ve been doing my homework. Ironically, you gave me time for it ;) ).

I was really talking more about my recent account block by you, and its reasons... FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For me, the matter of the block might have been concluded once I had notified you of the matter. However, since you have expressed a desire to understand my rationale I am obliged, by my understanding of the remit of administrator, to provide you with as good a reasoning as I am able to give. You have been polite in your requests, so I am willing to extend the courtesy in responding to every point (as I understand them) raised. This matter thus concludes when either you are satisfied with the response (not saying agreeing, just that you believe you understand my reasons) or you decide there is no more to be achieved in pursuing the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I must adress that you have been quite polite in responding to all my questions raised here by me, that are a obligatory procedure when wanting to make a report on Admins tools abuse. Since I still fail to understand the reasons that have lead to the blocking of my account (specially having in mind the circunstancies and the reasons of my complains), I really decided that persuing with this matter with higher instancies was more correct and appropriate. There is really no need for repeating ourselfs, where I completely agree with you.
To be honest with you, I really fail to understand how can this situation be considered fair and concluded. I was heavily insulted on my talk page from a user that I had already complained against, and where the comunity failed to respond, since I had antecipated this users behavior. I complained again about it (lost time with a predictible new accurence) and I was sanctioned (by you) with a 24 hours block. The offensive user, User:AlasdairGreen27 didn´t even receved a warning. And you, well, you had here something that you didn´t gave to me, a WP:AGF, a 2nd chance, and a chance to explain yourself. Thank you for all. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

re users BisR41 and TrisR41

I note you blocked the former as a sock abusing account. I would note that I have blocked the latter as a block evading sock of the former. You commented in your block summary that BisR41 passed the WP:DUCK test, so if there is an ongoing SPI you may wish to include the latest incarnation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a SSP case, but the sock template's should do the "tag-and-recognize" task. Quite a persistent and predictable fellow though; Create an account, post an angry message, complain at jimbo's talk page about how he is blocked unfairly and then create another. But i shouldn't be speaking to you - talking to myself is a sign of madness, and since we are all meat-puppets according to him... O well, easy enough to recognize and remove i guess. Excirial 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

this is probably inappropriate for ANI, so I'l say it here

It's kind of like Double Secret Probation? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Something like that - I couldn't possibly comment... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding the recent blocking of FkpCascais account

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

NickLenz19

Hi, LessHeard vanU. I'm one of the editors from WikiProject Comics whom you helped after a consensus of editors tried to get user User:NickLenz19 to discuss his questionable edits. He declined, you blocked him for 48 hours, and now he's immediately begun making the same edits. I noted on his talk page just now that I'd be seeking admin intervention. I hope you can help us again. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that admin J Greb has blocked for a further 60 hours. If NickLenz19 resumes his nonco-operative editing upon expiry of this block, I suggest that you ask for an indefinite block on the account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What?

By his actions? A comment about another editor that is in context with their one sided edits to a BLP! This gets sillier and sillier. Tie someones hands behind their backs tighter and tighter until they cannot edit and then say "it is your fault" what an utter joke. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does WMC have a civility restriction? Is he blameless? Perhaps you may not think so. I am suggesting that there is an extension, prompted by WMC's choices in the terms by which he addresses other editors. Does he not have free will in making those comments? Then the responsibility is his? Regardless, my suggestions do not restrain WMC from making the edits and noting the reasons why he has done so, but only to limit what he may say about them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I retain my doubts about LHvU's objectivity in this area, I should note that I support this action as long as it also applies to Marknutley, and is liberally applied in the future to all other incivil SPA's should they return to the topic area. Hipocrite (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have so commented in the Marknutley subsection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I look forward to SPA's no longer calling me "kid." Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A simple question. Why extend a civility restriction, when an editor makes a remark that most people on wikipedia find acceptable in the context it is in? If you won't answer this I will. It stops an editor performing in a normal way. Nice if you can then blame them for this situation. MN is another matter. I deal with one thing at a time and at the moment the case is about WMC and there has already been enough nonsense, this should be shut down right now not added to. Polargeo (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Without ignoring the beam in my eye, WMC crosses the line at times. This was one of them. I wish he'd stop, because then Lar wouldn't have an ammunition. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

One quick clarify on "value of the sources quoted" - this should not preclude WMC from arguing that any source is unreliable, or that a source is being misrepresented, as there is a real problem in the use of unreliable sources and the blatent misrepresentation of sources. It should prevent him from using the phrase "torrygraph," which, while in the broader scale of things is totally inoffensive will just be used as a lever to fuck with him. This, of course, will be mirrored in marknutley, who, to use an example of a statement that he has not used, would be prohibited from saying "The New York Slimes," or whatever british people call their liberal equavlent of something. Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The British Liberal equivalent of the Torygraph is the Grauniad, but of course Liberal here means centre party, probably centre right but we'll see how things go when the general election results come in. The Morning Star is definitely left wing, if that's what you mean by the term, but not really popular enough to be equivalent, The Daily Mirror is a cenre left tabloid. Neither have attracted Private Eye nicknames popular enough for me to remember them :-/ . . dave souza, talk 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I am letting you know because you participated in the thread the first time it was brought to the WP:ANI. Here are the URL and wikilink to the current discussion. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Color me puzzled.

I noted to NW, and now to you - I'm puzzled that, in an RfE nominally about WMC, there are discussions of possible sanctions against Mark Nutley. Mark hasn't been informed of the discussions, there are no diffs, no summary statement of alleged infractions, no evidence of prior warnings listed, and the entire discussion is taking place in an admin only section, so no one else(including Mark) is even allowed to add an opinion to the discussion. Sanctions may or may not be in order, but shouldn't there be a proper discussion, as opposed to proposals in a section titled "Result concerning WMC"?--SPhilbrickT 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests for probation enforcement are not taken in isolation, but are judged against past requests and complaints. It can be that to try to enforce the probation that actions are discussed that impact on more than the persons originally noted in the request (such as a particular article being subject to a 1RR restriction on all parties rather than the one or two accounts named, so the edit war between the two cannot become one by proxy). I would comment that these issues are discussed before being enacted (if there is consensus) so there are opportunities for comment from the individuals concerned. In the case of Marknutley, there is sufficient previous comment regarding some of his interactions for the matter regarding WMC and he to generate possible solutions to reduce the interactions between them - since they produce rather than solve disruption. Remember, admins do not act to punish editors, but to remove or at least lessen the opportunity for disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that repetitive attempts to get an editor such as WMC removed from the topic area could result in an unjustified presumption of guilt, but judging against past findings is of course reasonable. Comments by WMC which would be given a bit of slack in most productive editors appear to be seized on as being disruptive, the main disruption being the complaints that are raised against WMC. Having said that, he should take great care to be polite and your advice about commenting on actions, not on editors, should be well taken. You've probably discussed this many times before, so just take this as my musings on a difficult situation dealing with a hotly contested topic. . . dave souza, talk 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"incorrectly formatted"?

Re. : WP:BURO and "should" (as opposed to "must") come to mind. I'd prefer it if you throw out that part of the closing rationale. Did you see any disadvantage from the simpler format as opposed to the giant template? But yes, it has run its course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at this article

Hi there. Would you please be so kind and look thoroughly into this issue? There's an editor who keeps changing the type of album from "studio" to "demo" on this article. He has no reliable verifiable sources to back up his edits, he tried unsuccessfully to have the article deleted alltogether.

The editor has a long history of disruptive editing, blocks, topic bans etc. As his own account is already blemished as such, he basically has nothing to lose if he receives a further block for edit war. This is why I belive he is so adamant in continuing his reverts, wanting to engage me in an edit war.

I am asking you, and have sent the same message to other admins online, to please thoroughly look into this issue. I have reported the whole incident to both Ani and Avi, yet to no avail. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If I have time I shall look into it, but I am involved elsewhere and you may find another sysop more quickly able to assist. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Blocked for 48 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for taking a thorough look into this matter. Hopefully now the article will be free from disruptive editing. Amsaim (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Working on it

Problems regarding direktor

Hello Less, sorry to bother you but I feel this way we could possibly try to fix one problem and perhaps know each other better. The problem is direktor and his edits on the Flag of Yugoslavia and related articles. He is editing the articles against 4 editors that clearly disagree with him. I already asked for advice on the project talk page and they also agree with me (disagree with the way direktor edited the article). Direktor treats the article against WP:OWN, completely ignores other editors, attacks when criticised (called "Serbian nationalist" to one editor and "vandalism" to me...). He is completely wrong on this one and he does this only because he treats all edits of his as some kind of battle. You can see all explained at Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia... I have to work now, I´ll be back tonight, can you please intervene (I have no patiente for further dealing with him), or can you please tell me an advice how to solve this in your opinion. Thanking you in advance, I send you regards, FkpCascais (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 3 days so that consensus may be attempted at the talkpage, rather than within edit summaries. I am not going to count reverts, nor investigate the rationales (since they are not too detailed), but it appears to me to be an edit war was either occurring or incipient. In my talkpage notice I commented that consensus is not the product of a majority, or a minority, demanding their version is optimum - but the use of (En-Lang) WP policy and reliable sources to indicate the most usual terms used. I am aware who last edited the article, and would comment that not participating in a discussion on consensus - on the basis that the article presently reflects the preferred version - is inappropriate, and against the WP ethos. I shall note DIREKTOR individually that this matter needs to be resolved through proper processes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I also asked for intervention in the articles project Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology so they can further help on this. I am extremely greatfull for your help and I apologise once more for making you loose time with this. FkpCascais (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to stop disputes is part of what I do here, so no problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh no Less! I see you wrongly protected the article Yugoslavia. I´m not sure if there had been any troubles (I don´t think so) but the articles in dispute here are others, being the main Flag of Yugoslavia, but also directly related Flags of the Yugoslav Republics, Coat of arms of Yugoslavia and Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Sorry for this mess (I did gave you the link to the flag article in my comment...) please don´t be mad with me :) . Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice sought

Since you seem to shift your defn of revert fairly frequently, I'd like to know if the one your using this week/day makes a revert? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt it strange that you managed to insert "Polemic" back in but not the fact that the book is non fiction which hipocrite removed with the edit summary "Book is not "non-fiction," since it's fiction!". And is it not also strange that in talk there is no consensus to call this book a polemic yet your edit summary was "Per Talk", would you care to explain that? And ever more strange that no refs can be supplied to support both these claims? mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are admitting to being one of the other accounts that has edited in the previous 24 hours I see no good reason why you should enquire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Wording?

He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. So you know what that actually means right? It means i`m screwed. I`ll not be able to add anything, you know it`ll be reverted and then i`ll be stonewalled. How the hell does wmc get RFE`d and i get the restriction? mark nutley (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As you will have the services of a mentor in relation to placing the sources in the first instance, then the finding of a consensus based in policy would not be hard - and policy overcomes (well, it should) any amount of rhetoric - and then it is established unless someone can find a new consensus against it. Also, through the use of the mentors assistance, the sources used from now on should be so policy compliant that anyone removing them without a good faith rationale might be viewed as being disruptive or otherwise violating policy. I suggest that only being able to include watertight sourcing is beneficial to your editing stance, and the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What like this you mean? Or the removal the BBC as a source or the Guardian perhaps? yes i can see how i can achieve consensus with people who will blank an article while they are trying to get it deleted, i may as well just give it up mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can give up, it's a volunteer project when all is said and done. However, what I said was, if you can ensure that you only use scrupulously policy compliant references, then any removal needs to show how it was not in violation of policy in any subsequent discussion. If you use only a reliable source, and it gets blanked, then the blankee runs the risk of having their edits reviewed for compliance - and the consensus then gained means the source should not be blanked or changed without a new consensus. It is the hard way, but ultimately sound. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, btw, is this rfc/u about lar also meant to be mentioned here  ? mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Re the RfC, yes, apparently so. You may wish to remind people of that fact on the RfC talkpage; Please do not blank the RfC - act in the way you would have preferred people to have done to you... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Done that, thanks. Might i ask how long my block will be for? and if possible can i have a voluntary block so i can work on the wips in my userspace? mark nutley (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Added. Please check my addition to make sure it is correct. It is the first time I have made an RfC. I hardly ever bother with this sort of forum. I hate any situation where some editors pile on against each other like headless chickens but I suppose this is something we have to face in this area. Polargeo (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are blocked, it will be a technical violation and therefore 24 hours - same as WMC. That said, if Bozmo doesn't want to block and no further input then there is a stalemate and that would default to no block. More admin comment may decide either way. I am for the block, since I wish to act to the same standard as before and nothing personal (then or now). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, with regards to this If you use only a reliable source, and it gets blanked, then the blankee runs the risk of having their edits reviewed for compliance How do i get something reviewed? as chriso has again removed well sourced material it is not going to be possible for me to add material to any articles without fighting all the way, that is ridiculous mark nutley (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, did you pass this over to CLA68 before posting? If so, can you give a diff on his comments. Have you asked Christo for a fuller explanation, and can you provide a diff for it and any response? My brief look is that Christo may have a case when he says the source is not a review; the first sentence or two may well be, since it describes the book and its author within the context of the subject matter. The second half puts forward the claim(s) contained within the book, but offers no comment on the validity of the conclusion or the method in obtaining it and therefore could be construed as publicising rather than reviewing. All this is on the basis that the source was being used as an example of a book review, rather than another purpose. I think this is an example of why having a mentor was such a good idea, there is a context that needs consideration when applying a source.
To answer your original question, once it can be determined that the source - which appears to be a generally RS - was used appropriately then I or another admin can issue a warning to Christo not to remove WP:RS without consensus. You can then return it, providing there is no other revert by you in 24 hours before hand. Then we wait.
...but first, provide me with a response from CLA68 where he agrees the source was appropriate for what it was used for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I`ll have to wait for him to come online. I did not ask if it was reliable because national newspapers are reliable, am i meant to ask cla about every source i use? even one already considered reliable? mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just closed the Probation enforcement request that instigated the mentorship, so I can answer that, no, you don't have to get CLA68 to okay everything... but that you cannot revert back without a talkpage consensus for any source that is removed, even a reliable one. Therefore it makes sense that you already have CLA's nod before you use a source, because other people who are not under your restrictions can remove good cites (with the risk of being warned and then sanctioned/restricted subsequently) and it is best that you already have CLA's rationale to use in your move to get consensus. Again, a reliable source such as a mainstream newspaper is only good when used in context - in this matter, whether it is as a review of the book. That is also where a consensus is required. CLA68 is excellent at teasing out the correct WP policy to determine where consensus should lie.
Yes, it is a pain, but with practice and CLA's guidance you will be more able to use the correct source and note policy in your edit summary so your edits will only be reverted under risk of warning and sanction, and preferably not at all. It is why there is such burn out around such topics, you have to recross the t's and redot the i's on a regular basis (and also why co-operation works so much better than competition). I find adminning, with all the invective that it comes with it and other delights, easier than content work in disputed areas - and thus supporting all and any content contributors so rewarding. There you go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok mate, thanks, when cla is about i`ll ask him what he thinks of the source chris removed and go from there. mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this source from the BBC has been removed from the article several times by, User:Yilloslime User:KimDabelsteinPetersen and User:ChrisO This is what they keep removing. Cla has also put this back btw as well as two other users. Roger Harrabin writing for the BBC on when the Parliamentary Committee investigating the Climategate Controversy published their findings said, sceptics on the Bishop Hill website ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" With another commenting, "No-one with half a brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up." Now i hate to be a pain but you did say to ask if a source has been used properly and if it was still reverted out to ask you to review it. mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely protected the page until there is an apparent consensus on not only the appropriateness of the source, but also the suggestion of the article being merged or deleted. I have made my suggestions regarding a fresh RfC, inviting outside comment, or perhaps a third opinion on the question of the source, and commented that there would need to be a new AfD with fresh arguments to overturn the last one which resulted in "keep". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Yugoslavia article protected for 3 days

(Its not the Yugoslavia article. I've been stalked to five other smaller articles I'm working on. Everything I do on Flag of Yugoslavia, Flags of the Yugoslav Republics, Coat of arms of Yugoslavia, and Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is instantly removed by this person's sense of "revenge".)

I'll be frank: I am at my wits' end with this person. How am I supposed to remain civil with this account harassing me, following me around and reverting whatever I do out of some sense of "revenge" for my opposition to his edits at the Draža Mihailović article? You instruct me to discuss. Do not think me unwilling, but you seem to have missed one major fact: this account arrived to the articles in question with the intention to revert my edits whatever they may be, and regardless of any arguments. That much is obvious - I've been working on the articles for days and have introduced several (unrelated) improvements, but this user who, I stress again, just "happened" to arrive there seems to amazingly be opposed to each and every one of them on each and every article in question. His opposition is based on who makes the edits, and not what the edits are.

And now this old cheap ploy of his. He reverts all my hard work and quickly alerts you so that you may freeze his version in place. For some reason he seems to think he "wins" if that happens since he already did that on several other articles. I'm sure you can see how this repetitive pattern can be infuriating. I'm being harassed on no less than four articles and cannot get any work done around here. --DIREKTOR 01:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Less, I´m not sure you saw my last message...

Regarding the article:

• 1) He "made his hard work" on the article having faced oposition from the beggining.
• 2) He completely ignored the requests of other editors.
• 3) What is wrong with his edits? Well, the country had two historical periods, Monarchy (1918 to WWII) and Socialist Republic (WWII to 1992), each one with a different flag and coat of arms. Each one deserves EQUAL status. Direktor gives all importance to "Socialism" leaving completely the monarchic flag and coat of arms in the background since he increadibly and racistically considers the monarchic period as "Serbian nonsence nationalism" only because it was the Serbian dinasty that ruled the Kingdom. Everybody, except direktor, wants to have the chronological perspective (as in all other articles of former countries with several flags) giving SAME importance to all flags (not prefering ones over others, as direktor is doing). It is even quite an insult to see that he removed all the other monarchic flags and has put the official national flag of the K.of Yugoslavia in same level as the one of the Yugoslav Communist Party, at bottom of the page!
• 4) I am not following him, I am even avoiding him! But that is no reason for leaving him vandalising articles. He seems to be used to editors giving up on his uncivility (that is why I consider him, and all the ones deffending this, harmfull to WP) and he just seems extremely upset when someone stands up to him. When that happends he desperately starts accusing people of every insulting thing that comes to his mind (that was what I was saying "I´m fed up"). His acusations are extremely insulting (please, Less, if you have time, just see what all nonsence things he has acused me just over this, here Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia).
• 5) He disrespects every single one that disagrees with him (even you in this case, you politely spoke with him and gave him advice, but he seems to be owner of the all reason).
• 6) All me and other editors want is to have good articles. The article was almost perfect before he started excluding the monarchic period. He is just making trouble where there was none.

Sorry for this, but since we don´t know that well I felt better telling you my reasons. He is being the most disruptive as possible on this one. FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• There are dispute resolution processes, and there are article talkpages where consensus can be achieved - use them and not edit summaries while revert warring. If the edit war resumes when the protection expires, then I shall reprotect indefinitely - and I will protect in whatever version it is in without reference, so any editor involved in an edit war needs to realise that the "other side" may have the article in their preferred state when it happens. I may also sanction the editors involved. I have indicated that Misplaced Pages articles need to be sourced from reliable third parties, so all those involved have to do is find the references and then apply them per Misplaced Pages:Due weight. Be encyclopedia editors and not special interest contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But Less, regardless of everything, you have protected the wrong article... It is the Flag of Yugoslavia, not Yugoslavia itself... :) FkpCascais (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"I was wondering when someone was going to notice that...!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing, could you undo the edit by "User:Butler.banana"? The account's a sock of User:Ragusino, and I do not think that guy's fanatical "devotion" to enWiki should be encouraged. --DIREKTOR 22:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit, and indef blocked the editor as a disruptive SPA, but note that it does not mean that the version now shown is approved or is otherwised not subject to normal WP editing when the protection expires. The issues are still to be discussed, or otherwise resolved by WP process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know... What I don't know is how I'm going to solve this. I think there ought to be an infobox in the flag article, since its for FIAV flags like that of Yu, Fkp disagrees. The reason why he disagrees, however, is what tics me off. Namely I'm convinced he's against it out of personal reasons (he dislikes me intensely) and that's a very discouraging thought for anyone hoping to resolve this. --DIREKTOR 22:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you imply that this is an issue mainly between the two parties, why don't you agree to a binding third opinion? Present your rationales per policy and practice and avoiding any comment upon the other editor, and see what transpires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I need to understand what is the standard procedure you use to ban users for sockpuppeting. I need also to notice you that User:DIREKTOR is accusing me to be a sockpuppet, so that, after several trial to dialogue, and several advice not to use this terror strategy i opted to noticed him here. I'm an honourable wikipedian since 2006, active on en., it., fr., es., and other and my contribution to the project MUST be respected. I look how easily you, sir, follow Doktor's indications, and reminding you what happen to User:Crisarco, i wonder if this is the right method.

Best regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerns or allegations of sockpuppeting should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, where you should also find guidance. As regards being accused of socking, when no process has been instituted, then your referral to WP:WQA seems appropriate - although they may suggest you take the issue to WP:ANI. As for respect regarding a contribution history, I have also been editing since 2006 and am uncertain I am content to have my actions described as "follow Doktor's (I presume you mean DIREKTOR's) indications..." I only changed the version of the protected article as the last editor was a clear SPA intending to disrupt the project - I do get things wrong on a regular basis, but I think I am certainly correct in my actions there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Theirrulez. When an admin does something somewhere that I do not personally approve of I do not immediately try to discredit him/her with nonsensical half-insulting insinuations. LessHeard vanU, if it makes you feel any better, you're now officially a part of the evil admin cabal that I control. Congradz :) Ged UK, AniMate, and a whole lot of other veteran Wikipedians will keep you company. You'll be glad to know that to ease your transition into my servitude (LoL), our initiation ceremony will include quantities of half-dressed, easy women. ;) --DIREKTOR 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If they aint serving pasties, they can put their clothes back on... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I mean "Direktor's", sir. Thanks, I'll follow your suggestions to try to solve this unsafe situation. Best regards, sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cough cough

As far as I know violets are hardy perennials... --BozMo talk 07:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am, my friend, an administrator upon the Misplaced Pages project - and thus facts are alien to me! LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... another one

Ragusino is really spawning them by the dozen these days. Somebody REALLY needs to block his IP. Anyway here he is, "User:Kancetha" have fun blasting him away :) --DIREKTOR 01:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FootballPhill, Cows, Milk, and a quacking IP - again!

Hi, 82.1.157.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), previously blocked by you (probable FootballPhil sock) is back and carrying on much as before. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jacksisco

User:Jacksisco has begun recreating his page. It was blanked by you (see User_talk:Jacksisco#ANI_Notice). I don't understand this user at all. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours and page reblanked. They were likely just checking to see if anyone was still watching. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Prot, why?

Other than "MN asked me to do it" I can't see any reason for protecting that. The level of edit warring looks far too low to justify the prot. Please explain yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw a slow edit war. Reverting was taking the place of discussion, which had stalled, in what is primarily a content dispute regarding the eligibility of a source. In protecting the article, I have hopefully forced people to come to a consensus over the matter. On such a small article, any non controversial edits may easily be requested via the talkpage. I also noted a couple of editors commenting in such a manner as to indicate they were prepared to disregard the consensus of the AfD, so I have also noted the requirement for a new consensus in that matter also while ensuring compliance with policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that anyone other than MN agrees with you. Please reverse this pointless prot William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

LHVU, once you removed the protection, someone blanked most of the article and then, almost immediately after Mark was blocked for an unrelated offense, another editor involved in the content dispute redirected the article, which is against what the AfD decided. I've taken away the redirect and restored the text which was blanked and request full protection for the article again. I may file a formal enforcement request about the two editors who did this as it looks like bad faith/POV editing to me. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Or, put another way, you've edit warred over this article in direct contravention of "Please do not start revert warring, no matter how slow" without even troubling yourself to discuss your reversion on the talk page. Now of course your view is that you are right and therefore *you* (but not the "other side") are entitled to edit war back to your preferred version William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your input in needed on the article's talk page. Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

dave souza

Looking at the editor history are you sure it wasn't ChrisO you meant to block? AFAICT Souza has only done one edit on the page? Your call, not got time to check properly and action was needed. --BozMo talk 15:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Since cakes seem to be the order of the day, have some flies cemetery. Hope you enjoy! . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I took my time responding, I have been reviewing the issue; yes, I meant to block dave souza for removal of content without a clear consensus. I had protected the article because of the number of times an action was taken without discussion which also resulted in a revert of a recent edit, and lifted it upon request when it appeared that everyone was discussing matters. All three actions that I blocked for were fairly obviously not according to consensus, including ds's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blog

Understood, and thanks for the note. SlimVirgin 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see some correctly referenced material was reverted without discussing it first. I'm reluctant to revert back. What are the rules of engagement? :) SlimVirgin 23:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, ChrisO violated NPA on the talk page and removed a link to the article from the "see also" section of another article. As soon as I can get to it today, I'll be filing an enforcement request on Chris. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is ChrisO seriously accusing Cla68 of collusion with SlimVirgin? Or Lar? Either way, that has to be the best bit of unintentional Wiki-humor I've heard in months. ;-) ATren (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And via offwiki communication, no less. Plus on the talk page I find the august and ancient Daily Telegraph being dismissed as a fringe source. I fear we've all dropped down the rabbit hole. I fully expect the Cheshire Cat to appear any minute. :) SlimVirgin 01:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Now practically all the material I added has been removed. SlimVirgin 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: YS restored what he removed (running commentary). :) SlimVirgin 06:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the real issue: Sure, there has some discussion of whether newspaper associated blogs are RSs for certain things, but the major objection to the content is one of WP:WEIGHT and relevance. Just because an article in a RS mentioned the blog in passing, that doesn't mean we need to mention that mention in the article. That's what this argument is all about, not whether the the Telegraph is generally reliable. Yilloslime _C 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a WP article about X that's practically empty, and you have X being mentioned by very mainstream reliable sources in a way that's quite unusual for members of the group that X belongs to, then there's no reason within policy not to include those mentions in the article. SlimVirgin 06:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Welcome, SV, to the delights of editing Climate Change related articles. There are some issues relating to the editing and reverting of articles between some editors who regard Anthropogenic Global Warming as a scientifically sound theory and are wary of the preponderance - as they see it - of the quantity and quality of articles which reflect the sceptic or denialist viewpoint (which they consider WP:FRINGE scientifically) and those who feel either that the wider world debate should be better reflected (i.e. political and other considerations as opposed pure science, which they assert is not the case in the WP coverage) or are indeed trying to promote those agenda's in an effort to deprecate the science. There is an unfortunate tendency to both insert and remove content that might be considered as being orientated toward one or the other of the viewpoints without engaging in discussion or seeking consensus. Regrettably, this has resulted in the raft of articles being placed under probation and egregious examples of poor conduct being reported to an enforcement page. The page that you edited is not, unlike some, under a 1RR restriction so there is the potential to revert back - however, I had previously protected the page against a slow edit war and had only lifted same upon some indication that discussion was preceding reverting; although I then blocked 3 editors who swiftly took unilateral action to remove and then revert the removal of some information. I suggest that you review the article editing history, the talkpage history, and engage the existing editors in trying to find a consensus (based upon WP policy) regarding the use of sources... if you are inclined to continue editing the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I have reviewed the "discussion" regarding and involving you. I was not impressed, even by the low civility standards that are apparently endemic in the article covered by the probation, by the belligerent lack of good faith shown toward a new editor to the article, and have warned one particular editor and made my view clear on the article talkpage. I am somewhat mollified that one or two of the editors are managing to discuss some of the issues, in a manner approximating politeness, with you now, but I should have hoped there might have been an apology for their earlier tone taken. I am grateful that you do not appear to have been prejudiced (or simply put off) by the reception you received, and that you have continued to try to come to consensus by reference to policy and practice and by engaging the other parties. I wish you well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Discussion is continuing more calmly now about whether to merge, and if so in which direction. SlimVirgin 00:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"As Marknutley will be unavailable for some time, it might be wise to see if Cla68 (whose block has expired) wants to comment."

This is an interesting comment. Are you suggesting that they should be considered as a team? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 has previously edited the article, in supporting the sources and - per Marknutley's comments in the section above - had as Mn's mentor "approved" their insertion, and might be considered as someone whose views need considering. My consideration is, as always, that all viewpoints are gathered to ensure that consensus is soundly gained. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

discrimintn ofde disabld

canwetalk pl?--pl.note:i'v]>typin=v.v.hard4me!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear

• fe here +aldetime o/en.wt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to speak with me, I am contactable on Skype (markjamesslater1959), Microsoft Messenger (markjamesslater@live.co.uk) and Yahoo Messenger (markjslater@yahoo.co.uk) on audio. Evenings, Western European Summer Time, are best, since I may be away from the pc during weekend daytime and am unavailable most of the working day. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ta+aded]>typin=v.v.hard4me!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear

User:Matematicus

...is the latest sock of User:Ragusino, in case you want to lend a hand... --DIREKTOR 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it is Ragusino, although it is certainly someone's sock - and the username does not register on meta also - that appears to be orientated toward a Croat nationalism pov. I would however note the "poor English" exampled in the article edits but the correct grammer on the user talkpage, as well as the familiarity with WP editing practices. It may be our man attempting to disguise themselves. I am inclined to let you keep an eye on them for the time being. Once they either prove to be a POV SPA or take up the usual Ragusino interests then I will block.
As regards the user talkpage mentioned, never remove content that is not vandalism, libel or copyright from another editors talkpage; it is for them to decide if it is kept, per WP:TPOC. This is an official warning, and since it will not be recorded in your talkpage history for other admins to note it is a level4im one - if I note you doing it again I will block your account for 24 hours. I suggest that you tag the accounts page as a likely sock of Ragusino, and note your concerns on any editors talkpage they edit - but leave it at that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So socks can edit talkpages? Well anyway warning duly noted, but its him all right: Matematicus' edit, identical IP edit, Matematicus IP restoring the edits of "User:Culiao" . The Matematicus IP is Ragusino's variable IP. Check its edits . --DIREKTOR 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, socks can - A sock isn't an example of vandalism, but of disruption or ban evasion. Warning someone they are talking to a sock (even if it is likely that they are aware) allows them to take whatever action they choose. I will check your evidence re Ragusino. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, the ip and Matemeticus' similar edits on Ragusino's ip. Will indef block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANI#Disruption at Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools. Thank you. It was started by a user you blocked 4 months ago. --Elvey (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - I had already found my way there. My block seems unrelated to the issue at hand, other than it involves you again. Also, the other party does appear to be following the conditions for unblock in that they have taken the matter to ANI. I don't believe I can provide any more assistance than any other admin/editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "other than it involves you again"? I think you're mistaken; I had no involvement with , which I think it what led to the ban. I don't recall prior involvement with Hm2k at all. Apologies if there's a connection I'm not aware of. --Elvey (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jacksisco

User:Jacksisco has again put material back on his user page. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User indef blocked and userpage content replaced with block notice. Thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Blog again

Despite clear consensus for a merge, Cla has reverted to the article. This looks like edit warring to me William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC's typically run for 30 days and WMC is involved and therefore is inappropriate for him to close (see discussion). At least three people have voted since WMC tried to prematurely close it. Two of those were against the merger. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reviewing Doctor Connelley's talkpage and the article talkpage I see no direct request to undo the merge (and thus no refusal to do so), but then again I saw nothing from Doctor Connelley acknowledging the concerns regarding an uninvolved party closing a RfC after only a few days. I recognise that the issue was previously discussed, but would note that the AfD was closed as no consensus which defaults to keep (thus no delete, redirect or merge). In which case I suggest that a new consensus is required, and that the RfC should run longer to ensure that the opportunity for a wider gathering of views is allowd. To answer - in that Doctor Connelley prematurely closed a RfC in which he is involved, and following protestations from the RfC filer and others, and Cla68 undid that action - I do not think that Cla68 was edit warring against consensus, because consensus had not been clearly formed. As, until the last couple of commentators, the RfC was moving to where and what manner a merge should take place I suggest that it continues and the merge is enacted by an uninvolved administrator (I am disregarding the Doctor Connelley is no longer an admin, and non admin closures must be noncontroversial - since the admin requirement is only as a level of experience) when there is agreement on the manner of the merge and it taking place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Which part of RfC rules say that it needs an uninvolved admin to close it? I agree WMC is not in a position to close it. Cla is not in a position to close it either. The RfC should be closed after 30 days or earlier by SlimVirgin. However, it is within normal user rights to enact a clear consensus on the merge and an RfC has no power what so ever to hold up a merge which has clear consensus. If RfC had that sort of power Lar would not be allowed to act as an uninvolved admin right now and that is clearly ridiculous (I think he shouldn't but just having an RfC does not invoke those sorts of powers). RfC is not AfD and should not be treated as such. It cannot be used by one or two users as some major delaying tactic, stagnating development for a month. An uninvolved admin should do nothing more than enforce consensus and the clear consensus is currently for a merge. RfC should not hold that up. Polargeo (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

LHVU: if you want to be snarky, try to do it right. The correct title is Dr, not Doctor. And the correct spelling is Connolley. You're havinf trouble; use WMC, it is far easier. edit warring against consensus - interesting moving of the goalposts. You previous instructions, and blocks, were for edit warring - not "edit warring against consensus". Is that the new test you're applying? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No snark intended, Dr Connolley; I noted your preferences at your page and followed them, and I refer to you as WMC in the third person but in full title to you since that is the polite form of address. You are perhaps too imbued in a culture of belittlement and derision to believe that some people may actually make an effort. If you would prefer me to refer to you as WMC in all instances, then please make that request. To make myself clearer regarding my understanding of Cla68's actions, it was not edit warring. Period. It was not correct, since there had been no formal request to you to revert your action or consensus otherwise, as your action in improperly closing the RfC and making the merge was also incorrect. Therefore, I decided that no action was to be taken in this matter.

(resp to Polargeo) Policy pages are descriptive, and therefore may lag behind actual practice, and not prescriptive. Practice is that uninvolved admins close RfC's, except where there is obvious and consistent consensus. That there is current clear consensus, which is not the case as you wrote that, after a couple of days is the reason why there is an extended commenting time - it allows for fuller considered discussion, and for uninvolved editors to fully review the history before committing comments. Like I said, policy is descriptive and not prescriptive, but 30 days down to 3 is a little too loose an interpretation of a reasonable period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use my name and title, then get them right. You've read User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats, you know what it says. AGF has run out; I don't believe that no snark was intended.

Onto the blog: you've now reverted to your preferred version, which is clearly not the one that has consensus on talk, you've protected your preferred version, and you've purported to ban another admin from the page. These actions are not acceptable. You can't be an editor on that page and act as an admin too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And you haven't even bothered explain yourself on the article talk page. Calm down, realise you're wrong, stop abusing your powers. You need to undo one of the prot or the revert, and preferrably both, and withdraw your threats to PG William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have noted my actions and requested review at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of actions, then noted this at the Climate Change Probation requests talkpage, and same at the article talkpage. You may wish to comment at ANI. I would note that I have not threatened Polargeo; I have banned them from editing the article page for the duration of the RfC. I also refute your suggestions that the article is now in "my" preferred state - as far as I am concerned it is now broadly compliant with policy. The protection will be reverted when I am confident that there will be no interpretations of consensus that is not demonstrably agreed by a significant number of editors over an extended period. If that means the conclusion of the RfC, then so be it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, and can I have chocolate sauce as well? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As I noted over at the enforcement request, the RfC regulation states that the nominator can close a content RfC before 30 days. WMC was not the nominator of that RfC. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The action I reversed was an editor merging by redirect an article according to a "consensus" that had emerged prior to and during the RfC on the merge, not Dr Connolley's "closure of RfC and merge" which you undid and I forebear to sanction the involved party. Polargeo's reasoning was so out of step of any interpretation of consensus that I am aware of that it drew the article page ban, in that allowing such consideration of policy within editing would be disruptive. The protection re-instatement was, however, related also to the earlier redirect and revert, since it appears that talkpage consensus is not being properly applied. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain, in a different context, my rationale for my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting an RfC on an article weeks after a merge discussion had begun and the merge discussion was already at a state where consensus could be judged has NO bearing on whether the article can be merged or not. You are totally utterly out of line here. Polargeo (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

edit warring

How the fuck can this be edit warring. when I have never edited the page before? You are so far out of order it is getting silly. Polargeo (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you just trust me a little as a fellow admin you will find me very reasonable. Polargeo (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Hi LH, regarding the CC articles, I've only been involved for a few days, and only at a couple of side articles, but already I've seen some very poor behavior, which in my view makes it inevitable that the situation will come before ArbCom again before too long. Certain editors will try to cause a problem for any admin or editor who opposes them. My advice to you therefore is to find a second admin—someone fair-minded and if possible experienced—who has never been involved in the CC disputes. And then the two of you confer before taking any action. That protects you against allegations in the future.

I'm not advising this because I think you've done anything wrong; on the contrary, I think you're acting correctly. But you'll be attacked no matter what you do, and having a partner helps to keep you safe. I did this recently on a protracted dispute that I was adminning—acted together with a second uninvolved editor, actually not an admin but a mediator—and it worked out pretty well. Feel free to ignore this, of course. I'm just jotting down some thoughts in case they're helpful. SlimVirgin 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin. I strongly suggest your involvement has increased the gaming and the general mess in these articles. I know LessHeard was trying to coach you into supporting his viewpoint based on previous conversations between the two of you. There is no need for a warning. All LessHeard needed to do was undo my edit and advise me why, you obviously realise that he was wrong in using his admin tools and you are trying to warn him against such a course. thanks Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I made it clear above and elsewhere that I think LH is behaving correctly. I made the suggestion above in his interests only, because it's clear he'll be attacked for being even-handed. He would be less exposed to that if he had a second uninvolved admin to confer with. SlimVirgin 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird. You really think reverting to his/your preferred version and then protecting it is "even handed"? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think you may have missed some of the nuances of the past relationship between me and SlimVirgin - if there is respect now, it is because we have battered it into each other over the course of some rather heated exchanges. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I second Slim's advice, particularly her observation that "Certain editors will try to cause a problem for any admin or editor who opposes them." I've seen this happen before with other admins -- Tedder and ArnoldReinhold are two I know of personally, who acted against the wishes of "certain editors" and who subsequently had to defend their actions against a barrage of accusations. I suggest you try to find experienced admins who have absolutely no history with any of these editors or the CC topic, to help you out with enforcement here. Though to be clear to anyone reading this, I have absolutely no issues with LHvU's actions in this enforcement -- this is simply larger than any single admin can handle. ATren (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't an even handed action. Although please note I am not trying to use it against LHvU in any sort of battle I am simply trying to clarify if he is correct in banning me from editing the article and requesting that he does not use his admin tools to enforce his individual version of consensus, such as he has done here. Polargeo (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Case in point. ATren (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

LHvU undid my edit and then used his admin tools to protect the article at his preferred version. I had made only a single edit to the article which I thought enforced consensus. I unprotected the article because using the tools against my single edit with no warning was so disproportionate that my unprotect should not need further explanation because I would never edit war. LHvU then explained to me that his protection was not against me and I restored protection to the article on his request. I think he made a mistake but am not prepared to wheel war as that is disruptive to wikipedia. If anyone is edit warring on this article to keep it against consensus it appears to be LHvU. If this incident has taught me anything it is that next time I get involved with an article LHvU is dominating as an admin I will avoid discussion on the talkpage and come straight in as an uninvolved admin myself. However, I am unlikely to ever do this because I have principles that I stick to. Polargeo (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As part of the Auld Alliance, I think both SV and LHvU are acting in good faith. LHvU is giving priority to stopping edit warring over dealing with article content issues, in my own opinion it was unwise to restore dubious content, but justifiable in terms of protection policy. I don't have an opinion on whether or not the article should be merged, but do think that standards of sourcing have been reduced in an attempt to keep the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you were one participant in a brewing edit war, on a page where edit warring over this very issue was prevalent recently. LHvU reverted to the state it existed before the recent flame-up, and to the version which was being discussed in the RFC. It was quite a reasonable action. What was unreasonable was an editor who freely admits to being heavily involved in this debate using his admin tools to wheel war on LHvU's protection. I was fully prepared to take that very serious transgression to arbcom except for the fact that you reversed yourself 15 minutes later. But your continued battlefield behavior directed at the admins in this enforcement is becoming very disruptive, and if it continues then I think a very compelling arbcom case can be made that your wheel warring is part of a larger pattern of disruption. I think you should take a step back from this topic area, because your passion is starting to get the better of your judgement, and if that causes you to take another admin action like you did here, there's a very good chance you will suffer a very serious sanction. Arbcom does not look kindly on wheel warring of any kind, especially given the level of hostility you showed towards the other admin during and after the wheel war. ATren (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Very funny, you won't get rid of me that easily :)Polargeo (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also threatening to take me to ARBCOM is a little battleground don't you think? I never threatened to take LHvU anywhere, I never threatened to report you either. If you are going to accuse me of battleground mentality I advise a good look in the mirror. When any complaint is made against the actions of your favourite admins you jump right in there and defend them with every threat and tactic you can muster no matter what the evidence is. I am sure LHvU is quite capable of defending himself and his actions. Polargeo (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you can take whatever you want from the advice I gave you above, but wheel warring is a clear offense, and so is using your tools when involved in a dispute. Admins have been desysopped over such actions. If your passion for this topic is such that it causes you to cross the line in so dramatic a fashion, then you probably need to take a step back. And incidentally, you should probably thank LHvU for not escalating this himself. He could have reacted as badly as you, wheel warring back, and you both would be in jeopardy of severe sanction; or, he could have simply reported directly to arbcom on you wheel warring. Instead he chose to discuss with you and you (wisely) undid your actions. But you have a funny way of showing gratitude for the leeway LHvU extended to you, by trying to make a big deal out of his action, which was completely within his discretion as an uninvolved in this topic area -- or do you dispute that too? In any case, I've said what I needed to say here, and now I will disengage. But I suggest you be more careful in the future, because there are a lot of eyes on these pages and another transgression like that is likely to get you in serious hot water. ATren (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I third SV's advice. I think having a backstop would take a lot of the steam out of the attacks directed at you and help facilitate your role as an admin in this area. Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been considering this. To be blunt, I would not care to be responsible for placing some other admin or editor into this situation. Anyone is welcome to assist, as long as they understand what they may be letting themselves in for. It appears that if anyone varies too far from the views of certain long time contributors to these articles as to what constitutes both encyclopedic npov and adherence to Misplaced Pages Policy and practice, then you are immediately cast as being enablers of vandals, pov warriors, sinister interested parties, and likely to have channels of communication with the disparate ne'er-do-well's that ceaselessly try and deflect the pure and unsullied truth that would be apparent if it were not for these nefarious efforts. In short, having a second party assisting would not halve the invective received but more likely see it doubled to ensure both accounts neutrality, professionalism and integrity are equally and fairly maligned. I am willing to stand or fall by my application of policy and practice, but think that I should not seek to recruit anyone to take the blows directed at me. I have just come from reviewing an essay I wrote back in October 2007 regarding the editing of controversial subjects. I have not changed from the positions I advocated then, long before I became aware the editing climate change related articles might be included within that remit. I am quite happy to retain having the sole responsibility is trying to admin this article, as I am in having the guidance and experience of another admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Talk page blanking

Back in April I reported that User:Ruin Cireela had blanked the page Talk:List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes two times, and had made disputed edits to List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes. I also warned the user not to blank the page.

Since then, the editor was engaged in an edit war, as a result of which List of Adventure Time episodes was briefly protected. I thought the problem was solved, but happened to notice that the user partially blanked the talk page again yesterday, and seems to have resumed making controversial edits on the article page.

You may respond to this notice on my talk page if you are so inclined. Cnilep (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

See also this, though as vandalism goes it's not very interesting. Cnilep (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for contacting me via my talk page. Regarding your questions, the short answers are: other editors have expressed concerns about this editor's pattern of editing and page blanking, and yes, the editor has offered some explanation for why the talk page was blanked the third time, but then vandalized my talk page saying, "I don't care fool".

The much longer answers are:

1. Are you the only editor on the article talkpage who has expressed concern regarding the blanking and the controversial edits?

I reverted the talk page content with this and this edit. Assuming good faith, I merely suggested in my edit summary that talk pages should not be blanked. The user again blanked the talk page, so I issued a caution.

Another editor, User:AdventureTime, "applauded" my revert and asked me to do it again after Ruin Cireela blanked the talk page a second time. I did on 25 April and told the offending editor to please stop, and then reported his behavior at ANI. You suggested that I should report any future blanking to "AIV" (I'm not sure what that stands for) (Got it: Intervention against vandalism).

As far as I know, only AdventureTime and I have objected specifically to blanking the talk page. However, in addition to AdventureTime, User:Nicklegends and several IP users, notably 129.65.227.106, have objected to this user's changes to the article. I don't actually edit the article and don't have a position on its content.

2. Has Ruin Cireela ever tried to provide a rationale for their actions?

The user in question has offered some rationale for the changes to the article page, primarily in the sections Talk:List of Adventure Time episodes#I'm Not Ruining It, I'm Helping It and Talk:List of Adventure Time episodes#Potential new format to solve episode pairing woes.

The user suggested on the talk page, "Delete the list of episodes on the talk page . Delete all the old stuff and keep new. I'm going to do that." He then partially blanked the talk page. When I reverted that edit, added an internal link to Help:Archiving a talk page on Talk:List of Adventure Time episodes, and added {{uw-delete4im}} to User talk:Ruin Cireela, my talk page was vandalized.

Sorry if this is more detail than you wanted. Cnilep (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for not responding, I have been busy elsewhere. Can we put this on hold? If it continues or restarts please let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. The editor doesn't appear to have made disruptive edits in the past few days. Cnilep (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jose Fadul

Hi LessHeard vanU, do you know what to do for a repeat sockpuppet offender? I was following the Fadulj sockpuppet investigation and I noticed that he's up to the same thing again. I recently removed some references to him from List of chess historians and Experience, among others, and he's gone and put himself back on with the same kind of defense as before. 112.205.158.76 is a Filipino ISP making edits mostly on pages related to the Fadulj account. Ditto with user FadulJA. I'm not even sure how to start a sockpuppet investigation, or even if there's something else that should be done first. Can you help? I've posted this on User talk:Freqsh0 too. Thanks! Kleptosquirrel (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The simplist and most effective, but not necessarily the quickest, action would be to add this account to the Fadulj sockpuppet investigation you linked to - the instructions on how to note fresh incidents will be found on that page. This would allow investigators familiar with this issue to make the necessary blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mark

Can you please provide me the MSN adress of Sven70 by mail? THX in advance. --WizardOfOz (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it not in his signature? I will send regardless, cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy

Bad idea. This is an abusive editor who has misused the email function to abuse an editor, and whose recent history is relevant to a number of current issues. The original speedy was already undone by another admin. DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dunc, but... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy has been way out of order ever since he lied when reclaiming his tools. He's been deliberately stoking drama, and now he resorts to both off-wiki attack pages and abuse of the email function. Deletion just makes it look like he's some poor winged bird needing shelter from the storm. He ain't - he's a troublemaker who can't take what he dishes out. DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting development; my first instinct was to redirect his talk page to the user page, but figure you know more and I'll leave the notion to you and will just lurk.

As a side note, it seems that deletion clears protection (right?). The page was protected and now the red page is open to recreation...

Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
you'll get my vote once I read those pages ;)

doh; it's red, too ;> Jack Merridew 22:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just the infantry, Jack. If I got it right, the generals get medals. If I got it wrong, I get shot (and the generals get medals). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you got your 'orders' somewhere... If the plan is delete-all, there's still stuff about:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=User%3ATa+bu+shi+da+yu&namespace=0
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Ta+bu+shi+da+yu&namespace=3
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=User%3ATbsdy+lives&namespace=0
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Tbsdy+lives&namespace=3

There's also User talk:Ta bu shi da yu, which is nominally a CSD but has a huge history, and is a user talk page, of course.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we chat at User talk:Jimbo Wales? I'm sure it will be quieter... Things are likely to be sorted out in the next day or so, but I saw something I felt needed doing fast and did it. If you are going to vote for me, then you have to realise that you are going to have to trust me not to tell you why. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anything productive ever occur on Jimbo's talk page? Not that I can recall. Anyway, I have my own views on what happened, mostly due to having talked to people over time and having a fucking clue, and don't feel a need *to* ask. If you told me what you know, you might have to shoot me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To all concerned: Please leave the page in question deleted at this time, notwithstanding any guidelines or standard course of action to the contrary that might otherwise apply. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that a talk page that is NOT deleted has a note on it saying "keep it deleted"... its not deleted if you've gone ahead and created it just to put that note there... I could start a whole new thread on there if I wanted to and wouldnt have to do anything but hit the new section button.Camelbinky (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you could, but if you were to then your bones would crumble and red headed infants will demand that you buy them steak dinners. Thus is the power of ArbCom. Trust me on this, I am an admin! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what is a "steak dinner"? My memory doesn't go back that far. I have seen steak, of course. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One does not have to be an admin to know the power of the banhammer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the word "responsibility" to "power" in this context. One admin cannot necessarily impose a ban, although an uncontested indef-block may de facto amount to that. The issue of bans only arises in somewhat different circumstances. Rodhullandemu 00:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I primarily use my banhammer to tenderise my steaks/mistakes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

@ya both; I was referring to the AC's bannhammer, not the mere infantry. Not knocking the responsibility aspect, though; I said as much to AniMate the yesterday. @Rodhullandemu; not sure if you know my history; I was whacked.

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 00:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume that because I am silent, that I am ignorant. I see many things here that do not require my involvement. However, congratulations on your "rehabilitation", however unjust your ban might have seemed. Good editors are, if not scarce, at least not obvious. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't assuming, just unsure, as I've not much encountered you before. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What I dont understand is the wording on the page- it says for you to not create the page again, that it is deleted... but by having the words on the page that means it does exist and therefore not deleted. It was in fact deleted, but then recreated just to put that message on it.. it just is weird wording I suppose. Can someone explain to me what is going on? I happened to have his talk page watchlisted and saw all this stuff going on and just curious as to the inner workings of why and how.Camelbinky (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Best to not ask, you might get shot. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume NYB means to its former state, with full history - rather than the version now showing. I would also point out that if I commented on the reason why - or at least what I understand to be the reason why - then there may not be any point in it being deleted, and since it is deleted, sorry, no can do. If in the fullness of time there are explanations that can be given then I am sure that they will be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Just was curious why such language and seemed like a contradiction. Sorry I waded into this! Thank you for taking time to help.Camelbinky (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pages that say this page intentionally left blank are in fact not actually blank. See also this for more information. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question

Should this article Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future fall under the probation? Should i add the probation template to it`s talk page? mark nutley (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, right now - the article, and presumably the subject, do not focus on the environmental effect so much as the proclaimed inefficiencies of "green" energy against fossil and nuclear power production. If, however, this article comes to the attention of editors traditionally arrayed within CC article editing, and manifests the same type of issues, then my opinion might be revisisted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks mate just wanted to be sure mark nutley (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems at Fred Singer

Would you mind taking a look at this, please? SlimVirgin 20:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please ask SV to attend to this bit The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Then you might ask her why she has escalated this dispute without making the slightest effort to resolve the situation on talk - unlike me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(resp to SV) Since this is an Probation enforcement request, I shall respond at that venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(resp to WMC) I presume SV will have read your comments, and hasten to fulfill the requirements of making a request at that page. As an editor new to the intricacies of the Climate Change Probation, there needs to be some leeway given when formulating their first request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, SV is a bit of a noob, though I wouldn't have dared use that phrase myself first. She still hasn't got it right; I've left her a message. These things are so difficult, don't you agree? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Me? Who divides the day by the number of mistakes I made? I was noting that AGW articles and the attendant processes to restrict the level of sub optimum discourse that occurs there is very unusual within the WP editing environment. Those of us who are comfortable in our thickened and calloused skins should remember that most editors sort of assume that reliance upon policy and civil discussion should suffice - well, I think I am flexible enough to recognise it, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Help at Syrian Arab Airlines

There's a user, whose IP constantly changes, who is continuously reverting the fleet of the airline to a very large - and unsourced - one which he seems to like more. Can you help? Ciao e grazie. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look. From my brief review it appears that most of the ip's (which GeoLocate to different parts of the world) are involved in enlarging the fleet count - and not only to this article. Is there much evidence of ip editing being non-vandalistic? If the only or large majority of ip edits are vandalism, then protecting the article from editing by ip and new accounts seems reasonable. I await your response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed

I always thought you were basically neutral, if a bit of a loose cannon and someone who (like me ;-) does not easily acknowledge being in error. But this has me deeply disappointed. It's well-written, so you obviously spent some time on it. But it is full of bad assumptions and bad reasoning, and sets a really bad precedent. I would have expected that from "neutral" Lar, but not from you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

LHvU, I suggest you don't respond to this baiting. Your record is clean and the comment is quite reasonable for everyone but WMC's supporters. ATren (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not baiting, it is Stephan's opinion. He disagrees with my central point, in that WMC bringing his AGW editing viewpoint into BLP matters is inappropriate - regardless that WMC castigates anyone who is not a scientist that edits CC related articles in a manner which does not reflect the science consensus as being incapable of editing to NPOV - in an area which is supposedly scrupulous in adhering to WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:COI. That is his right. Plus, StS is not a "WMC supporter"; from what I have seen he has arrived at much the same opinion regarding AGW as WMC independently, and has sought to protect good CC related articles from being deprecated by skeptic or denialist inclined editors for the same reasons WMC has and does. He just goes about it with a modicum of respect and civility. He recognises WMC's knowledge of the subject, and supports that viewpoint - but he is no cheerleader or camp follower. Nor is he infallible, but like me he does take a bit of persuading. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He disagrees with my central point, in that WMC bringing his AGW editing viewpoint into BLP matters is inappropriate - not quite. I think there is no evidence in the current action that this has happened to an inappropriate degree. If Singer himself calls himself a global warming sceptic, including this is at least open for debate, not for enforcement. And I agree with WMC that we need to avoid to give undue weight to minority and fringe opinions, i.e. that if we include them, we have to clearly label them as minority or fringe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite wrong: it is not permissible to mention that Singer is a skeptic; SV says so . Nor can we mention that he is retired, either. Perhaps it is a secret or something. Of course, there is no obligation on SV to explain this at all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned the same thing on Bozmo`s talk you may have missed my reply Singer has been involved for a number of years as a skeptic in the debate on climate change—The New York Times writes that his supporters and critics call him the dean of climate contrarian That is right there in the article mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, WMC is correct that skepticism and certainly denialism is a fringe view as regards the scientific consensus - but that support of a "fringe view" is not the main claim of notability for this particular BLP (nor that he is retired). He seems, upon my scan of the article, to have had made major contributions to science in the latter part of the 20th Century, and that is the basis of his notability. His subsequent adoption of some of the arguments advanced by Climate Change skeptics, and his published arguing of the case, as noteworthy is testament to his standing in the scientific community from his earlier work. There is no indication that the community is swayed by his suggestions. All this is can be incorporated into an article which reflects the proper due weight of his achievements in his specialist fields, and notes his subsequent contributions to the CC debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, in the words of the BT/Maureen Lipman advert, "...if you have an 'ology', you are a scientist!" and that those letters after your name do not get taken away after a certain age or you no longer practice that discipline - as you will be aware, Dr Connolley. The subject is a scientist, albeit one who draws a pension rather than a wage. As I have suggested to StS, although latterly possibly better known as a skeptic (I wasn't aware of him at all before his article became the fulcrum of another referral to Probation enforcement) his claim to notability is his body of work in his specialist field. Per WP:UNDUE, reference to his published views on Climate Change should not only note where in the debate he stands, but also the attention provided by them is in relation to his standing because of his earlier achievements. Simply, his views on CC would not be notable if it were not for his contributions previously.
I see SV's edit as a plea to stop edit warring (by edit warring, but that does appear to be sop around here). She is, as I am aware, rather difficult to get to change her mind or to accept another pov might also be valid. Well, welcome to my world! I haven't given up yet, and I am surprised that you appear to be considering that option. Talk to her - politely, of course - and see if there is not an option that satisfies the both of you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you repeated this wrong argument twice. First page of GHits on Singer: All climate change. GNews hits: All climate change. GScholar: 6/10 climate change (and one more fringe paper on ozone and UV-B that is tangentially related). And yes, Singer is independently notable to some degree. Interesting side note: In 1974 he considered CO2 a pollutant per But even scientific nonentities like Tim Ball or Pat Michaels become notable as deniers, per "man bites dog". There is little evidence that Singer would even have an article without SEPP (which does not mean he could not have one, just that no-one would have bothered). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, is it true that in the past WMC has edit warred to keep information in the lede for Singer's article to make it look like he believed in martians? Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but I've not followed either WMCs edits nor Fred Singer religiously. William has, as far as I know, kept Singers opinion on the possible artificial nature of Phobos in the lede. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that he's kept that misleading factoid in the lead, but you deny that it makes it look like Singer believes in Martians? Even though one version WMC added actually contained the word "Martians"? Interesting interpretation -- are you contending that WMC meant Singer believed Phobos was built by Martians but simultaneously didn't believe in the existence of Martians? ATren (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, this edit by WMC where he openly states that he is purposely putting information he considers embarrassing into the lede followed an edit of yours by one hour, and you didn't notice? Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So then your argument is that all embarrassing information be removed from BLPs? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not; rather that material should not be included solely because it's embarrassing. This fact was completely trivial, yet WMC reverted it back into the article FIVE TIMES, twice reverting Fred Bauder (then an arbitrator), once using the word "Martians", and several times in the intro. All sourced to a single article from 50 years ago and for a fact which was made moot by more accurate measurements made soon after his statement. The only reason this was included is because it was embarrassing. ATren (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Has Cla68 authorized you to reply on his behalf? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Atren gave the answer I was going to give, but beat me by a few seconds. The reason his answer is the same as mine, is because it's completely obvious. When someone openly admits that they're trying to ridicule someone using their BLP, how can any of us find such behavior defensible? If WMC was working in academia, he could very well be facing an ethics review board for such behavior. Don't you agree? Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Even your assumption is wrong. You seem to fall victim to your own spin and fail to assume good faith. William stated that the material was embarrassing - but then so what? We do not exclude things that are embarrassing. He did not state that he wanted to ridicule someone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So what was the reason for inclusion in the intro? Was it notable, recent, or relevant to Singer's career? The only justification given is it was embarrassing, yet you continue this Irwin Mainway Bag-o-Glass defense against the patently obvious. ATren (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil in your responses; your last clause is unhelpful to maintaining a collegial editing environment. With that out of the way, it's worth noting that both you and Cla68 have distorted WMC's words to give them a meaning that differs from their original. He did not say that he was including the material because it was embarrassing; his edit summary was an objection to covering up things for the sole reason that they are embarrassing. Big difference. Note that WP:CIV specifically calls out "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold" as conduct to be avoided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then show me the merits of inclusion of that statement in the intro, and presented in such a way that implied a belief in Martians. I'm failing to see how a 50-year old qualified statement that was made moot by better measurements a few years later, should be in the intro of this man's BLP. We already know WMC considered it embarrassing, but your thesis is that he didn't revert 5 times because it was embarrassing, so my question is: why did he revert 5 times a claim that is 50-years old, moot, and completely non-notable if not to embarrass? Maybe I'm just missing the good faith interpretation you're seeing, so please enlighten me. ATren (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it constructive to speculate on the motives of other editors when those motives are left unstated. You appear to disagree; presumably, you will then have no objections when others speculate about your motives. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but you are defending the 5 reverts, so on what basis do you believe they were good? ATren (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not defended the 5 reverts. I must say that your habitual tendency to impute things to people that they did not actually write is at best unhelpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you were defending them. Perhaps you can give us your opinion on those edits then? ATren (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My goal here was to discourage the misinterpretation of others' words, whether accidental or otherwise. Debating specific content is best left to the article talk page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, are you aware that O J Simpson was once the highest rated sportsman of his genre and that he still holds some records? You very well might, but in the matters of Ghits and news he is the guy that got away with murder - allegedly. However, to be blunt nobody would give a damn about a guy with brown skin who may have killed his wife if it wasn't for the fact of who he was originally. Now, as WMC and you rightly point out, if anyone has heard of him here it is as a skeptic, but WP:Recentism is no basis to write an article; all the sources need weighing. SV has her position and WMC and others have theirs, so lets see what reliable sources from over the period the subject has been working has to say (and don't forget the explosion of publishing over the last decade or so does tend to sway simple numbers). I mean, that is the way it is supposed to work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I know that OJ was some kind of sportsperson, but I don't even follow European sports, much less US sports. I understand the example, but I don't see how it helps your argument. Yes, there are some situations where previous notability leads to undue prominence for later actions - if Brad Pit takes a shit, some magazine is probably going to make it into a story. But likewise, there are situations where the act itself makes someone notable. I gave you the examples of Ball and Michaels, much more apropos than some sportsperson. So indeed, this is something that needs to be clarified by debate and consensus, not by banning one party from the discussion. And that's exactly what you proposed and what I object to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is to bar WMC from editing the article only, he would still have recourse to the talkpage and there will be editors with much the same general viewpoints as gis who can both involve themselves in any discussion and edit the article page - all without the "taint" that is associated with WMC. Part of that discussion that WMC might involve himself in, is would the subject be considered sufficiently notable, per WP:RS, for an article if there were not the matter of the CC comments and publications. If so, does the later attention to his climate/CO2 relate to his notability or do those comments promote his earlier achievements - and again those arguments need to be sourced. Per the current emphasis on BLP's and the scrupulous application of policy toward them, I should think that it would seem appropriate to diminish the "controversial" aspects of an article until consensus exists to what extent it should be included. WMC seems to act on the basis that the extent of the prominence of controversial material should be tested by seeing if its inclusion and its manner will be opposed. It certainly is not a WP:BRD if the content is continually returned despite the removal of it by many editors, including an arb (fwiw), on the same disputed premise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no such "taint", with or without scarce quotes. As far as I know, the only outside sources complaining about him in person are Solomon and the right-wing blogosphere. Solomon's articles are so wrong that it takes a whole lot of effort to think they are not deliberate lies - they certainly cannot serve to establish any kind of "taint". In the case of such a misrepresentation campaign I expect - and indeed demand - the support of the community against it, not a "well he's wrong, but let's give in just a bit for the sake of impression". That's akin to "Sure, nothing wrong with niggers sitting in the front of the bus. But let's not stir the pot right now". The correct way to deal with untruths is not to tacitly give in, but to confront and expose them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SOAP, Misplaced Pages is not in the business of confronting and exposing lies. This misconception that there is a duty to determine a truth and use those sources that support that viewpoint is, perhaps, at the heart of much of the issues surrounding the editing of AGW/CC articles. If an otherwise notable individual talks poppycock upon a subject, or poppycock opinion drives some debate, then WP's remit is to report the poppycock without comment, and any refutation again without comment. I am aware that this neutrality of reporting can, and perhaps is, gamed to provide a veneer of respectability for these views. That is not a point that WP concerns itself with, it is only concerned that there are reliable sources reporting the comment - as it is in paraphrasing the reliable sources that report upon the exposing of lies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Great. It is good that you recognise this. I now look forward to you putting it in to practice. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to you indicating that someone may in good faith be presented with the same information as you see and come to a different conclusion that is not wrong because it is not the same as your determination. I come to different conclusions to many of the admins taking part in this Probation enforcement, and elsewhere in the project, but I try to see where our disparate views hold commonality and where compromise may be possible. I do not hector them for not agreeing with me, or take every opportunity to emphasise how wrong they are in acting upon their honest conclusions. I would think it unbecoming. Very. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I was talking about our internal dispute resolution, not about article space. Solomon is wrong, badly, and everybody with a minimum of Misplaced Pages knowledge can see that. We do not report this (for one, since we do not discuss his individual articles at all), but we are not forced to accept this known wrong information as a given for determining how to edit the encyclopedia. "We should ban X because someone without a clue has said something about X that we know is wrong" is not an acceptable argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are arguments being made here and on other pages that WMC cherrypicked comments, and edit warred to retain them, which cast the subject in a poor light, and these are being presented by editors of some experience and standing. That they are being refuted by other editors of equal experience and standing does not negate them, nor the concern that allowing this situation to continue while the matter is being resolved is not prudent. The fact that a questionable third party source may have denoted WMC as being one or a major editor indulging in alleged biased editing is really not the point, although it may point toward how obvious it appears to what itself may be a non neutral entity. The fact is that there are some diff'ed examples of edits by WMC that appear to cause concern regarding impartiality and motivation. Until it is resolved I suggest that there is no further potential for any misunderstanding (if that is what it is) by having WMC withdraw from editing the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a point about the Martians; it's also very poor editing because it removed the context of what Singer was saying and the thrust of his argument. This is apparently what Singer wrote in the letter that WMC used as a source (my bold, and I'm copying this from another WP article, so I've not seen the source myself):

purpose would probably be to sweep up radiation in Mars' atmosphere, so that Martians could safely operate around their planet.
My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big 'if' lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them.

Singer was arguing "if-then," and it turned out apparently that the measurements were indeed in error. SlimVirgin 23:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - the entire thing was made moot by observations made soon after (a possibility Singer himself accounted for in his "if-then"), yet WMC and others insisted it stay in and that it remain prominent. It was not only non-notable and moot, but presented so as to maximize embarrassment -- mitigating details were kept out, embarrassing details were kept in, and attempts to fix it were thwarted. ATren (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was interested to see that WMC even reverted Fred Bauder, who I believe was on ArbCom at the time, and Fred was there only because of the Solomon article in The National Post complaining about WMC's editing.

So we have (a) material being used out of context so that it's misleading; (b) it's added to the lead of a BLP with the acknowledgment that it's embarrassing to the subject; (c) this is done by an experienced admin; (d) a national newspaper publishes articles complaining about it; (e) an Arb tries to fix it; (f) he is reverted by the same admin. Although the material eventually got removed and that person isn't an admin now, (g) two years later he is still allowed to edit the BLP, even though (h) the subject himself has now complained about it in print too. And then (i) every editor and admin who tries to sort it out is attacked. How could this situation have continued for so long? SlimVirgin 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Note also the comments of this blog post where Fred defends Misplaced Pages but later admits WMC's revert was "a nasty piece of work", that his edit comment was "symptomatic of the problems he has in being courteous", and that he doubted any comment Singer made on Phobos "has significance". Bauder had identified this problem two years ago but WMC wouldn't let him fix it. ATren (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SV, would you be willing to step aside whenever there are objections raised about your actions in national or international media, or when the subject of an article complains about your actions? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the Climate emails scientists?

I believe that there are certain scientists involved in the Climate emails controversy who received a majority of their press coverage in the context of that controversy. Should we put Climategate in the lede of those scientists as well? By the logic of WMC and Schulz on Singer, we should. ATren (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because a 20 years sustained voluntary effort someone proudly proclaims is equivalent to being the victim in a one-off hack? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding AFD closures

AFD closers are able to mandate one, and only one thing - should this article be deleted or not. Sometimes closers go above and beyond, and write things like "merge" or "smerge," or "redirect." Those are non binding, but can be taken a a gauge of consensus. "No consensus" however, does not mean "no consensus to do anything," rather "no consensus to delete, defaults to keep." I recognize that you are not an experienced AFD closer, so you might not understand this, but it is imperitive that if you are going to use your tools to enforce things about AFD, you understand what those things mean. While I don't dispute that in this case there was no consensus to merge at the time, the reason I believe that is because the talk page and editing history evidenced a lack of consensus, not because of some beurocratic requirement that some process happen after some other process because thems the rules. I'm taking this to your talk page because I'm strongly concerned you don't understand how AFD works, and I'm hopefull that after the explanation you will no longer assume that "no consensus" is not nearly as strong as you believed. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, since my only experience of AfD's is commenting on a few and opening a couple. I am aware that despite its title the participants can argue for a result other than keep or delete, like "redirect", "merge", etc, and that sometimes a consensus will form for one of these options. I am a little surprised that the only mandated decision can be either keep or delete based on a judgement of the consensus existing, since the last sentence of the first paragraph of WP:AfD notes the other results that may have consensus following an AfD. It is certainly my belief that AfD's have been closed with the consensus shown as being something other than "keep/delete" - it may be that these are simply not as binding as a delete (I am aware that keep is not a permanent result, since articles may be renominated, and even with delete there is DRV).
My understanding, therefore, in regard to a closure of "no consensus" is that it is a simple statement that no decision could be made in respect of the available options discussed. That may be because an option was not presented. This does not prevent a consensus forming later, although for delete it requires a further AfD.
In the case of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog), however, I note that merge - with a couple of candidates - was presented as an option. This result was not adopted, since the closing admin found no consensus for it or any other argued result. My point, in a nutshell, is that there was no existing consensus for a merge provided by the AfD discussion, so one was needed to be found for it to be effected. It is suggested to me that one was formed subsequently, but I remain unconvinced that this was the case since some editors were actively arguing for inclusion of sources which they believed conveyed independent notability for the subject and the few or less editors agreeing that the content should be merged included one who proposed it at AfD, and others who shared that editors viewpoint regarding AGW and the validity of skeptic comment and the manner in which it is published. WP:Consensus is not an agreement between likeminded editors, it is the agreed conclusion how best WP policy relates to an article, or part of an article, or a discussion.
In conclusion I was not enforcing the AfD decision of no consensus, I was enforcing that there was no consensus for the merge to be found - anywhere. I saw a legitimate process (the SV initiated RfC) where consensus was, hopefully still is, forming which I felt was being disregarded by individuals who argued that their limited and narrow series of agreeing statements with each other sufficed. I hope I have explained that I was not imposing an invalid interpretation of a AfD result of "no consensus", but rather preventing another invalid understanding of consensus from being enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Suspect editor

Hi LhVu! Could you take a look at todays mass of edits by G.-M. Cupertino. He is a returned editor, following a 12 month block, yet appears to be asking for a username to be unblocked, which may have been one of his sockpuppets. Some of the dits he has done have been reverted, including one I have reverted where he put that Prince Harry of Wales is of Armenian descent! I am not qualified to say if or not the majority of his claims in edits are correct or not! Richard Harvey (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be able to link to the ArbCom case under which he is originally blocked? My view of what G.-M. Cupertino is doing is requesting unblock of an ip (used by the pc he edited from), and to transfer his sole editing account to that of SavetheArchDuke. I am suspicious why an ip should be blocked for over a year, since autoblocks are for 24 hours and the only ip's that blocked for longer than 12 months are anonimysing (?whatever) proxies. I certainly wouldn't be keen to see a returning sockmaster given access to a proxy ip. Anyway, since much of his editing now is in the same manner as that when he was ArbCom blocked I would prefer to review the history before commenting further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Reappearance

Hi. You commented on ANI here a couple of days ago, noting the editor had stopped editing and recommending to let the matter archive itself. I posted a reply agreeing with your recommendation, after taking all considerations into account, and even included a comment the thread was closeable.

Since then, the editor reappeared, spending a large chunk of Sunday making further attacks, more unrelated comments, wrongly claiming I'd done a number of things I had not, with further accusing of malicious bias -- essentially continuing their same established pattern of activity.
Although I saw the comments, quite aside from it not being something I wanted to occupy my Sunday afternoon, I chose to respect the earlier decision, and so did not reply. Another was added later. Today they've logged in to post yet more comments accusing me of bias and a vendetta. What do you reckon, should I respond there, again? 92.30.111.99 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer again

I'm withdrawing from the article for now, LH, because life's too short for this kind of thing. I've left a request on the probation page.

I want to draw your attention to this discussion, which Stephan Schulz tried to collapse, about the use of primary sources in that article. Back in January, a little-used SPA and climate change blogger, User:Eli Rabett (talk · contribs) added one of Singer's tax returns to the article, with Singer's home address on it, to show that he had received a certain payment. I can't find a secondary source that discusses the payment, so I removed it a few days ago. This was a violation of the BLP policy, which says primary sources like this may be used only if secondary sources have discussed the issue; see Misplaced Pages:BLP#Misuse of primary sources.

Rabett also uploaded other primary sources about Singer (e.g. a deposition) to a website Rabett controlled, then linked to his website in at least one of his edit summaries. I'd prefer not to post that diff here. When Tony Sidaway and others removed yet another personal website that Rabett added (someone ele's this time, not Rabett's), e.g. WMC restored it. Only one person, User:2/0, said anything to Rabette about the BLP policy that I can find, and no one removed the tax return from the article, which meant it sat there for five months.

The bottom line is that the BLP policy was ignored by a number of editors and admin who were experienced enough to know better—and this was after Lawrence Solomon had written three articles complaining about the editing on the page, so it wasn't exactly an obscure corner. Something happened on this article that made our BLP safeguards not work. SlimVirgin 09:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Harrabin, Roger (31 March 2010). "Climate science must be more open, say MPs". news.bbc.co.uk. p. 1. Retrieved 12 April 2010.